When the mysterious extrasolar object, named Oumuamua, was detected and characterized, the leading analysis of its signal strongly suggested that it was a long, cylindrical or cigar-shaped object. And so there were various theories as to what might shape a comet or chunk of asteroid into such a shape and deplete it of readily evaporable volatiles.
The possibility that it might be of alien origin was suggested by some scientists, and predictably latched onto by the press, which exaggerated the xenotechnology hypothesis far beyond any apparent evidence.
The odd thing is that the main paper that defends the possibility of a xenotechnology origin for Oumuamua makes an "opposite" assumption: that the object was a derelict solar sail, which was tumbling, and would also match the detected signature of Oumuamua.
This seems... a bit odd to me, considering that "long, narrow, roughly-cylindrical metal-heavy object" is a dead ringer for many designs for a space station module, tank, or spent booster.
Why is a solar sail more likely to be a good fit than something like a large cylindrical derelict such as a booster, drop tank, or habitat module? Is this based entirely upon the assumption that acceleration of Oumuamua due to light pressure was accurately measured?
